Opioid makers made payments to one in 12 U.S. doctors - <AUTHOR> https://news.brown.edu/articles/2017/08/opioids-influence <comment><USER2> Maybe it's because Americans just have this cognitive dissonance that their trusted doctor could be any less than 100% conscientious about their health, but we need to plainly face the fact that if members of the press were able to write exposés about drug makers' fudging the data about the addictiveness and effectiveness of their products, that doctors with their medical training and responsibility over actual people's lives should have proceeded with more caution and not written scripts mindlessly to get rid of every tiny pain patients had just because they kept asking for something. It's just unconscionable.

EDIT: this survey was also very damning: [http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct- prescri...](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-prescription- painkiller-overuse-met-20160324-story.html)

<comment><USER3> Your ignoring the fact that up until recently, pain was considered to be the fifth vital sign and was just as important to treat as things like a fever.

Medicine as a field is largely about removing discomfort, as many medical conditions could be relatively debilitating. Think how many times taking an ibuprofen/acetaminophen just made it possible for you to go on with your day, rather than needing to lay in bed in agony. For people with chronic pain, or those coming out of surgery, perceived recovery time can be a big thing for people.

Additionally, the article didn't address the fact that it could very well be that doctors were being paid off to prescribe a particular brand of opioid rather than just opioids in general, something that is relatively common when there are a large number of drugs that can equally help treat a given ailment.

<comment><USER2> I think you're raising an interesting point, but I disagree with your example - what pain that is so bad its sufferer needs "to lay in bed in agony" can be relieved by ibuprofen, acetaminophen, or any other OTC pain reliever? The Great Binge[0] ended long ago - perhaps for the wrong reasons, but ended nonetheless, until recently when legal opioid prescriptions spiked.

This is about doctors putting their patients at risk in the process of treating them for routine problems which did not result in opioid addiction rates as recently as 25 years ago, and certainly were not prescribed with any other side benefit as far as I've heard.

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Binge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Binge)

<comment><USER4> Headaches can easily be that bad and relieved with ibuprofen. Otherwise yeah, it's lay in bed and try to sleep and hope they don't last into the next day.

<comment><USER5> Or, sometimes, they're not. My wife gets bad migraines. For the most part, nothing works.

She has not tried, and is not interested in trying opioids for them, though.

<comment><USER6> She should try sumatriptan. Works amazingly well for me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Reminds me of what Rostand said about murder: "Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god."

Sell one oxycontin and you're drug dealer; sell a million and you're a C level.

<comment><USER8> That can be generalised.

Petty thieves break the law. Mafiosos skirt and avoid the law. The real kingpins write the law.

<comment><USER9> Smart criminals don't commit crimes; they change the laws and then act freely.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I have two relatives that died from prescription opioid addiction and abuse and I don't think a few payments here and there is what motivates doctors to prescribe these drugs at a higher rate. Maybe it does maybe not. The fact is they are powerful drugs that can stop pain AND they make LOTS of money so they get pushed as the best option.

The thing that is in question in a doctors mind is, can I say this is the best option. Thats what the face-time with reps, meals, conferences etc are doing, giving the MD a perception that this is best practice. It's the professional cover to prescribe what everyone knows is a highly addictive and dangerous narcotic.

If the same kind of money were spent on informing, reminding and reminding again, face-time with addiction prevention advocates, conferences on the opioid epidemic, payments for speaking on alternatives to opioids for pain treatment, giving doctors the facts about these drugs, the addiction and death rates, the impact on families and communities of the inevitable proportion of people who will become addicted and of those who will die, it will be much much harder to say this is a best practice.

But even then doctors are pushed hard to deal with as many patients as possible. A quick answer that deals with the immediate problem is what the patient wants and its all the doc has time and support from the system to give. This situation lends itself to the potential for those who truly benefit, the makers of these drugs, to take advantage of the situation and push drugs they know will make people addicted leading to higher use and profits. Lost lives and destroyed families be damned.

</comment><comment><USER11> Feel free to browse doctors' opioid counts here. I was able to match them to their actual profiles. Take into account their field, but, even with that the numbers are ridiculous. If you are in "Family Practice" and prescribe opioids 9167 times per year you probably have a very sore hand.

[https://www.opendoctor.io/opioid/highest/](https://www.opendoctor.io/opioid/highest/)

<comment><USER12> > _If you are in "Family Practice" and prescribe opioids 9167 times per year > you probably have a very sore hand._

Though Bruce D. Mackey works at a Family practice, he specializes in Pediatric Occupational Therapy[0] (pediatrics broadly covering patients up to 21 years of age). It's fairly common for a Family Practice to have some specialty staff, and some such clinics have very large patient throughput. I used to be registered to one which specialized in sports medicine, others specialize in things like dietary/lifestyle intervention.

[0]: [https://www.opendoctor.io/bruce-d-mackey- otr-1146468](https://www.opendoctor.io/bruce-d-mackey-otr-1146468)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> "the average payment to physicians was $15, the top 1 percent of physicians reported receiving more than $2,600 annually in payments"

Neither is enough to sway most physicians IMO. This seems to me like trying to stir up a scandal where there really isn't one.

I did hear on the radio today that 90% of prescription opiates are sold in USA and Canada, with the bulk of that being the USA. Other countries treat pain more holistically.

<comment><USER14> When I was living in Europe and had my wisdom-tooth removed I only got a local anesthetic so I wouldn't feel the cutting. Recently I heard a friend of mine (here in the US) say she was given vicodin afterwards. To me that's just insane. Sure I was a little uncomfortable for half a day but I'm not going to take bloody opioids because of that. It might also be the case that people just don't ask for it as easily as in the US (I mean, it's much more common to hear Americas place food orders with a bunch of custom stuff, Europeans usually just order what's on the menu).

<comment><USER15> I didn't get any pain pills after wisdom teeth. I had local anesthetic and nitrous oxide gas to ease me, but not enough to sedate me (and obviously, no IV).

Some people are given pain pills because their teeth are impacted and the doctors have to break bones; the surgery is far more painful in the recovery stage than if it goes normally.

Even still, a common theme amongst my friends who got vicodin after the surgery was them not taking the pills, or only taking a single dose the day after to manage the pain.

<comment><USER14> I'm not saying this happens everywhere, but there are plenty of odd cases where medication is given way to easy. They should create some central registry to monitor these prescriptions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> >> Q: What connection might there be between drug-maker payments to physicians and the current opioid use epidemic?

The article is pure speculation. They did not correlate the payments made to doctors with the prescriptions those doctors made, nor even more broadly with national prescription rates.

This article just makes the implied assumption that doctors push pills onto patients. I don't discount that at one time doctors may have been incentivized to play it fast and loose with pain pills, but those days are LONG gone now.

I would like to see research on the population in terms of predisposition to addiction and susceptibility to chemical dependence.

</comment><comment><USER17> I don't like the 'pigs at the trough' image of this type of report. There are almost certainly pigs, but there is much more to resolving it than just revoking some licenses or throwing some people in jail.

Standard practice in business of all types is to take clients out for a meal to talk business. Usually, the meal setting enables a different type of legitimate, sober interaction. Many types of business are conducted this way. Some companies have policies that limit the value of what a salesperson can share with a client, for example, Applied Materials limits the value of any type of entertainment by a vendor to $100. This is good corporate policy to inhibit undue influence by vendors.

But it is not 'a payment'.

Likewise, it is pretty easy to see that pharma would want a Dr. who is prescribing their medication and has a positive story to tell to speak at one of their seminars. The Dr. might say that his time is worth $x, and the Pharma needs to cover his travel expenses, and then he'd consent to presenting. In this case, any fees paid would be considered payment. The question is, how much is being paid and does that payment present undue influence. Many doctors are independent contractors and can choose to do this type of activity without a policy to override or limit the value of it. On the other hand, state medical boards which license physicians should have policies that limit all medical and pharmaceutical companies in how they can influence physicians.

<comment><USER18> I think that is ridiculous.

Learning about new medicine is continuing education for physicians. It is their job. Having a third party paying them or even just offering dinner to them so they can do their jobs is a huge conflict of interest.

Further, they are getting a completely biased education on these new drugs in addition to being "taught" by pharma reps who often do not even have a BS in life sciences...so they are very limited in being able to relay nuanced medical information.

<comment><USER19> > Having a third party paying them or even just offering dinner to them so > they can do their jobs is a huge conflict of interest.

Not directly related, but my sister studied to become an audiologist some 15 years ago (in Norway). I was absolutely stunned at the corporate sponsorship - full on weekend trips with a nice hotel room and paid drinks and fun activities (plus a conference). Not once, but many times during the studies, for all students, sponsored by different companies (I'm not sure if they were competing companies, but you'd think so..)

There must be a lot of money in hearing aid for that to make financial sense.. Is/was this type of sponsorship common for students in other areas, medical or elsewhere?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> check your doctor: [https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/](https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/)

<comment><USER21> This really should be more widely known. TIL my doctor got a meal + beverages worth $130. Seems reasonable compared to the national average of over $3k.

<comment><USER22> When I was younger I was prescribed Paxil and strongly encouraged to stick with it despite horrible side effects. Brain shocks, hateful feelings, and definitely horrible depression to name a few of the non-personal ones. I still have them occasionally 6 years later. I eventually ran away from my old life, moved across the country, and eventually stopped the Paxil and eventually got better but not after burning a ton of bridges. After this site came out I found the doctor had been given nearly $30k from Glaxo Smith Kline over a few years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Payments may affect prescribing, but I think that system factors count for more than many people realize. By way of an example, imagine the following case, which is reasonably common at the outpatient medicine office I am rotating through:

A 46 yo M with diabetes, hypertension, a 30 pack year smoking history, and low back pain that has been treated with oxycodone ever since a failed back operation 1.5 years ago presents to your office for routine follow-up. It's 10am, the hospital allots 15 minutes for routine appointments, and your next patient is in the waiting room. You are his physician -- what do you prioritize?

Smoking, diabetes, and hypertension are a perfect storm for a heart attack in the next 10 years, so how much time do you want to spend optimizing antihypertensive meds and glucose control? You could talk to him about quitting smoking, which is pretty high-yield since it would lower his cardiovascular and cancer risk. On the other hand, he doesn't seem particularly motivated to quit right now.

You would like to see him exercise more and eat better, since his blood sugars are not too bad yet, and you might be able to spare him daily insulin injections. But, his back pain is so bad that walking is difficult and exercise is out of the question. Tylenol and ibuprofen only "take the edge off". Oxycodone is the one thing that seems to really help. He asks you to refill his prescription, especially because "the pain is so bad at night, I can't sleep without it".

His quality-of-life is already poor, and it would become miserable if you took away his opioid script without providing some other form of pain control. You believe that he might benefit from physical therapy and time. He is willing to try PT, but he is adamant that he will not be able to "do all of the stretches and stuff" without taking oxycodone beforehand.

You now have 7 minutes to come up with a plan he agrees on (you're there to help him, after all), put in your orders, and read up on the next patient. How do you want to allocate your time? What if you suggest cutting down on his oxycodone regimen and he pushes back?

I don't know if there is a good answer. But these situations happen all the time, and someone has to make a decision. Most doctors are normal people. The different backgrounds, personalities, willingness to engage in confrontation or teaching, and varying degrees of concern for public health vs. individual patient needs, etc. lead to a variety of approaches. In the end, I think that pharma payments have a marginal effect on most doctors who have families, bosses, insurance constraints, a full waiting room, and are faced with the patient above.

<comment><USER24> Car mechanics tell you that you need a new transmission when you need a new transmission.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Are there any rules that if a doctor has such a deal, it must be clearly expressed to the patient verbally and in writing? I think that would help not only deter doctors for making the deal at risk of being viewed as untrustworthy but also help people who blindly trust their doctor to maybe think twice before accepting their solution. I don't think there's a fix for the patients that just want the drug, and as long as they're informed, consenting adults, it should be their prerogative.

</comment><comment><USER26> This should be kept in context. Let's say the manufacturer presented new data at a conference. During that presentation they provided lunch and refreshments. Everyone of those doctors that attended will now show up in the CMS database.

Do we think that a $15 lunch is going to influence a physician to over- prescribe a drug?

<comment><USER27> They could eliminate the suspicion by not buying lunch.

A relative of mine was a pharma salesman. She had a database with the lunch preferences for every doctor on her circuit, and bought several lunches a day.

<comment><USER28> > bought several lunches a day

Sequentially, or in parallel?

<comment><USER27> Parallel. For any given clinic, she would know which doctors worked there, and what their preferences were at the nearby take-out sandwich shops.

Whenever I used to go to a clinic, I noticed that if it was around lunchtime, the salesmen started piling up in the lobby.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> There is an irony here that the US invaded Afghanistan, the world's largest opium exporter[1].

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanista...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan)

<comment><USER30> ...and those drugs go North towards the former Soviet Union. This is chemical warfare by other means. When our Russian friends cannot afford the heroin any more they make 'Krokodil':

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desomorphine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desomorphine)

Whatever you do, don't do image or video searches on this 'flesh eating drug'!!!

This product came about in part due to codeine being as available as aspirin (no prescription needed) and a crackdown on heroin by the teetotal Putin.

In the USA and places like Australia 'crystal meth'/'ice' took hold in same- but-different circumstances.

When you look at the UN report on opium cultivation in Afghanistan for 2002 you see why there was such an important need to bomb the country - those evil Taliban ('students') had wiped out this important (to the Americans) industry. Thankfully with the British protecting the poppy fields the trade has been restored and we are back to business as usual.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Is this really news? John Oliver ran a piece on the topic and the industry's many other dubious practices over 2 years ago, and I'm quite sure he wasn't the first to try to raise awareness.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQZ2UeOTO3I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQZ2UeOTO3I)

<comment><USER22> Not everyone watches John Oliver. Lots of things you and I know would be news to a lot people and many things they know would be news to us.

<comment><USER31> Of course, but like you and I those in his team don't have a single source of information, and as Oliver quips in said video, you know you have a problem when your marketing practices are notorious enough to make it into TV series.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Not related to payments, but related to opioids:

My father broke his thumb a few weeks ago, while operating a woodchipper. After getting a cast, he went to see a specialist, who recommended that K-wires be surgically installed - small metal rods that go into his thumb, until it heals, at which point they will be pulled out.

He got local anesthetic, got the wires installed, and got sent home. Because he lives in Canada, they gave him nothing for the pain. Two days later, the pain died down, and he's now waiting for the bones to heal.

In America, I can't imagine that doctor would get many positive reviews from his patients, for not prescribing painkillers. Market forces would push him towards over-prescribing... And statistically, some of his patients will become addicted.

<comment><USER4> Sounds like a shitty doctor. It takes longer than two days on weak opiates to get addicted and the doctor knows that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> And they tell them that their patients suffer from "pseudo-addiction" and should get more of the drugs...

</comment><comment><USER34> If it walks like a marketing program and quacks like a marketing program, guess what...

</comment><comment><USER35> bribes - or payments?

<comment><USER36> In America it's all the same. Or you can call it 'lobbying' if you really want to dress it up.

<comment><USER37> Doctor's aren't public officials. So no, you wouldn't call it that.

<comment><USER38> Doctors have taken an oath and have a public responsibility. They are liable for bad medical behavior (particularly if deliberate) [malpractice].

So let's not quibble over semantics.

<comment><USER39> Believe it or not, this grew out of the threat of lawsuits if they DIDN'T prescribe opioids because they were ignoring the "5th vital sign" (pain).

The real culprits here are the corporations - they should be liable for paying for the treatment of the folks addicted to the drugs they pushed.

<comment><USER40> 5th vital sign is urine output :)

What is actually driving this is that income (and other hospital measures) is tied to patient satisfaction. Don't want to lose 30k/year because I didn't give the patient what they want.

I'm an inpatient physician (ICU), so I never prescribe chronic opioids, but I am pretty liberal with them in the hospital. And no, I've never received a Panera lunch for the privilege of hearing about OxyContin.

It's an extremely complex and difficult problem. I think doctors are taking too much of the blame. Maybe we should simply ban the use of chronic opioids for non-cancer pain (or other similar etiologies). When I was a resident, I made all my patients sign an agreement that I would not prescribe chronic opioids unless they had metastatic cancer, were otherwise in a hospice facility, or I made a special exception. Don't sign? Then you find another doctor.

I realize that will evoke some strong emotions from some of you, but you don't see the everyday begging from patients for more opioids when they obviously don't need them. Some people with legit use-cases will suffer under such a scheme. And that could drive up the use of heroin.

There's no easy solution to this problem.

<comment><USER41> > 5th vital sign is urine output :)

US doctors began prescribing many more opioids after a campaign by the VA describing pain as the 5th vital sign. Doctors began having to ask people about pain, which meant they had to treat that pain. The VA also said that opioids are not addictive when used to treat pain. They're not so addictive when used to treat acute pain, but they're more addictive when used to treat chronic pain. Very many more people got opioids to treat chronic pain because of this campaign.

[https://www.va.gov/PAINMANAGEMENT/docs/Pain_As_the_5th_Vital...](https://www.va.gov/PAINMANAGEMENT/docs/Pain_As_the_5th_Vital_Sign_Toolkit.pdf)

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1924634/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1924634/)

> It's an extremely complex and difficult problem. I think doctors are taking > too much of the blame.

A lot of americans get opioids from doctors.

[https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/prescribing.html](https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/prescribing.html)

> An estimated 1 out of 5 patients with non-cancer pain or pain-related > diagnoses are prescribed opioids in office-based settings

> However, primary care providers account for about half of opioid pain > relievers dispensed.

Some states have between 93 and 143 opioid prescriptions per 100 people!!

<comment><USER40> Yeah it was kind of an inside joke, as urine output is really important in critically ill patients and I have to constantly remind my residents and nurses of that.

As for the VA's campaign: yes, I remember it. And it's why we have those emoji scorecards all over the hospital. Which doctors never use. My subjective opinion is that we still vastly under-treat pain in the acute-care setting.

And I could talk all day long about how stupid the VA health system is.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Microsoft Classic Intellimouse review: A noughties comeback - <AUTHOR> https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2018/07/06/microsoft-intellimouse-classic-review/ <comment><USER2> >It reminds me of a simpler time. Not fields and football in the street, but when the fact of being online was a straightforward joy, as opposed to a warzone of heartbreaking news, mass misanthropy and weaponised geekery.

Why does this resonate with me so much?

<comment><USER3> The mouse just fit peoples hands just right - I brought a new one for my new job.</comment></comment>


"PR is the news equivalent of search engine optimization" - <AUTHOR> http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

<comment><USER2> I'll suggest an improved title for your submission:

"PR is the news equivalent of search engine optimization" (2005)</comment>


Ask HN: How do I become a Data Engineer - <AUTHOR> I worked doing analytics for a while (Machine Learning with Python and R and ETL style work). I transitioned to software development (Backend Engineer Working with a combination of Scala and Node.js).<p>[Insight](http://insightdataengineering.com/blog/Data_Science_vs_Data_Engineering.html) has this description:<p>"A good data engineer is has extensive knowledge on databases and best engineering practices. These include handling and logging errors, monitoring the system, building human-fault-tolerant pipelines, understanding what is necessary to scale up, addressing continuous integration, knowledge of database administration, maintaining data cleaning, and ensuring a deterministic pipeline."<p>I find that most courses and resources (off and online) are aimed at Data Science. Just looking for advice on how to gain the skills needed to build an impressive Data Engineer style portfolio. <comment><USER2> Just get hired for a team using Hadoop or Spark, and preferably doing some real-time processing (you might need to study these frameworks in your own time to be able to get such job).

On such team, you'll be exposed to all of the concepts you've listed.

<comment><USER3> Yup, only way is through experience.</comment></comment>


Vybe Bracelet - <AUTHOR> https://www.wearvybe.com

<comment><USER2> They've been spamming Reddit for a while. After the creator asked a blogger to take a post down about it, it was discovered that this is a cheap made-in- China device that's been around for a while (but rebranded)

Link: [http://www.reddit.com/r/HailCorporate/comments/1ploeh/rshutu...](http://www.reddit.com/r/HailCorporate/comments/1ploeh/rshutupandtakemymoney_is_used_to_help_crowdfund_a/)</comment>


Dropbox on Mac now updates itself with a process in background - <AUTHOR> https://www.dropbox.com/help/9300 <comment><USER2> Of course I see the possibility of harm here, but really, isn't automatic updates pretty standard by now? I mean, it's got to be better than letting a large swath of users run old versions of the software because they don't know how/don't care to update it. I mean, isn't that the more severe security issue at hand?

And if you're conscious enough about your digital security that you really do mind Dropbox updating itself automatically, why did you install their app in the first place? The only OS I actually expect to protect me from the apps I install is iOS, and only in combination with the AppStore review process.

From what I hear, Apple's attempts at creating similar safeguards in macOS with the Mac AppStore has not been received that well with developers because of the restrictions sandboxing place on the apps.

<comment><USER3> > because they don't know how/don't care to update it

In this case the reality probably is closer to: because they don't know they should be worrying about it.

(Sample of one, obviously, but I certainly didn't know I should, and yet never got any kind of notification to that effect until I sought to delete the app a few weeks ago.)

It's so matter of factly on consumer devices that things just update themselves or nag you to do it from time to time, that it somewhat boggles the mind that it wasn't automated.

<comment><USER4> i disabled the automatic update on my android device. i had a lot of apps installed and had the feeling something is updating all the time and trashing my battery life. and then there is problem that alot of times the new wersions are worse then older ones. i had the instance where newer versions of apps, had features removed because they now offer "pro" version, and also change the layout to cram more ads. so now im updating the app only if i notice that something is not working right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Ugh. I'm all for calling out Dropbox (or anyone else) when they actually do something wrong, but this is getting ridiculous.

<comment><USER6> I think the concern might be that we are more and more granting ownership of our machines: If NSA wants to install a spyware on targetted systems, they have a dozen autoupdate channels to do it through now.

Which is good because we do nothing wrong. Apart from Youporn, where only one underage model that you didn't know about could lead you to jail. You know, accusations do wonders for your career.

Apart from this catastrophic scenario, I don't either see what's wrong. How many people per year are accused of pedophilia, that could be due to conflicting work/nation interests?

<comment><USER7> > I think the concern might be that we are more and more granting ownership of > our machines: If NSA wants to install a spyware on targetted systems, they > have a dozen autoupdate channels to do it through now.

> Which is good because we do nothing wrong. Apart from Youporn, where only > one underage model that you didn't know about could lead you to jail. You > know, accusations do wonders for your career.

> Apart from this catastrophic scenario, I don't either see what's wrong. How > many people per year are accused of pedophilia, that could be due to > conflicting work/nation interests?

Thank you. And to people who think this won't affect them, it doesn't even have to be cp charges. NSA has lost the fight to keep its uncensored dragnet data to itself. Today, it is FBI who has access to it. Tomorrow, it will be the IRS which is fine. However, the real kicker will come when state departments of revenue and city police get their hands on it.

Remember, we as a people, legitimately break the law millions of times every day. It doesn't have to be cooked up evidence. If someone wants to hang any of us "upstanding" citizens, they just have to look hard enough.

<comment><USER8> How long until we are issued tickets for speeding when we say simple things like, "I was hauling butt to get to work today!" on FB? Or have our insurance premiums jump because of it.

Certainly the former wouldn't hold up with current laws, but how long until the laws are changed?

The more we allow our privacy to be eroded, the closer we are to having this come true.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is NOT about keeping everyone updated and reducing the pool of older clients. This can be done by simply denying service to outdated versions. It worked very well for AOL Messenger 20 years ago, no reason why it won't work just as well today.

This is strictly about being able to install anything on users' machines at will and having a formal consent to do that.

The fact that Chrome and others do that doesn't make it any less _unacceptable_. You are losing control over what exactly and when you allow to run on your machine.

<comment><USER10> You do realise that would probably _increase_ the amount of customer support cases raised, from confused/angry users - which is the exactly the opposite effect that Dropbox wants.

For the majority of typical users of Dropbox (and HN certainly doesn't count as typical), this is a net win in every way. They get the latest bugfixes, and they don't need to worry about all this downloading installers rubbish that seems so last decade.

Also - if you were deathly worried about Dropbox and what they could do - firstly, why would you install their client to begin with, considering it's entirely closed-source? Secondly, why would you use a cloud storage provider like them to begin with?

You talk about "losing control" \- why not spin your own Dropbox? (I suspect many people, nerds included, underestimate the sheer amount of engineering and technical man years that go into something like this). However, for the Stallman's among it, it may make sense.

<comment><USER11> > _You do realise that would probably increase the amount of customer support > cases raised, from confused /angry users_

No, it won't.

It's an urban legend.

For every support request that cannot be answered from a stock pile of answers, the first reply is "update to the latest version and then come back." and not once did I see anyone ever complain about it (leave alone become angry) in my 20+ years in IT business. Never. Not a single complaint. Those who can upgrade will upgrade when asked.

<comment><USER12> That depends on the industry. I have worked with support for about as long as you, and many clients wants to find a solution that they can use until they upgrade (since the upgrade process can take quite some time if you have lots of dependent software that needs validating).

<comment><USER11> Sure, there are clients like that and those who can't upgrade due to internal policies, QA restrictions, etc.

Point being is that the extra load from having to deal with clients on outdated versions is insubstantial and it certainly does not justify force- shoveling updates down everyone's throats.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I wonder how they did the auto-update that brought that feature to me... I have a pretty shitty internet connection here and i recognized the dropbox updater sucking up my bandwidth yesterday... I've not triggered any manual update...

<comment><USER14> Thought this too as soon as the notification popped up.

To the best of my knowledge I haven't updated recently, so they've basically had an auto-update feature sitting dormant for a while.

Nothing fishy here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> When exactly did HN transition from from fawning over one of the best YC success stories to being upset with nearly everything Dropbox does?

The number of extremely negative comments here here about using a second process [just like Chrome, Creative Cloud and countless others] to auto-update is really surprising. I can understand people not being thrilled with a kernel extension being installed, but most of those comments there seem misguided or uninformed.

The obvious transition point [to me, it seems] was when they put Condi on the board. HN opinion on nearly everything Dropbox does has really soured since then.

<comment><USER16> I started looking at HN right when Dropbox announced on it.

Funny enough, I came to HN looking for something like Dropbox. I even remember when Dropbox was doing odd things that Apple had to ask them about because they didn't know how they put the check marks in.

Yet here we are, angry at Dropbox for continuing down that path of making things more and more user friendly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This doesn't seem any worse than Chrome continually updating itself.

<comment><USER9> Both of them doing that in mandatory fashion is unacceptable.

I might be OK with running _this_ bit of their code on _my_ computer, but it's not an open bar for dropping anything executable onto my machine at will.

<comment><USER10> If it's unacceptable, why would you use the Google Chrome browser?

It's open-source (Chromium project) - just compile it yourself?

Once you've run somebody else's binary, you're already conferring significant trust on them. And I might be biased, but the Chrome team has shown themselves to be very vigilant with security, and generally on-the-ball on all of these things. (Memory issues aside...although I'm not going to get into that...lol).

Many newer projects do this - e.g. Atom from Github auto-updates.

VS Code from Microsoft does this - I think it's awesome! =)

<comment><USER18> >Once you've run somebody else's binary, you're already conferring significant trust on them.

This is the "you agreed to a date, that means you agreed to go all the way" argument.

Even when a someone extends trust or tentative trust, that doesn't mean they should be expected to give up the right to maintain control of that choice at each successive moment in time.

EFF strongly discourages auto updates that can't be turned off, because they can be used for enabling DRM and curtailing freedom.

<comment><USER19> Chrome updates can be turned off. Easily.

<comment><USER18> Exactly. Dropbox should afford users the same respect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Did Dropbox fix malware way to get privileges?

[https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev...](https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fhabrahabr.ru%2Fpost%2F310074%2F&edit- text=&act=url)

</comment><comment><USER21> When did they post this? Is it old? It mentions OS 10.7, so I'd guess it's been in place for a few years now.

<comment><USER22> The minimum required operating system version isn't necessarily indicative of the age of the feature. I can develop an application on macOS 10.12 now and have it support all previous versions up to OS X 10.7.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I wonder why the option to disable automatic updates was omitted?

<comment><USER24> (Assuming this is true....) Because if they're stuck supporting old versions of Dropbox, they're miserable (having to support dozens of versions) and you're miserable (things start to break). I understand why people would be worried about Dropbox auto-downloading software, but honestly... if you're the kind of person worried about the security around Dropbox auto-updating the same way every app on your phone does, you probably aren't using Dropbox to begin with.

<comment><USER25> I'd still prefer to be prompted to update.

I know my phone is a security mess. But I want my desktop not to be.

<comment><USER26> That is funny to me because I assume my phone is much more secure (with strict sandboxing) compared to my desktop.

<comment><USER27> Except that each of those sandboxed apps keeps uploading your behavioural and private data pretty much constantly with no ability for you to limit or stop it like you can on the deskop :)

<comment><USER19> And you can never downgrade to an old version. Or add a firewall that will block ads. Or disable javascript selectively. Or control when programs can run. Or know whether they use crypto safely. Or have any control over when your phone will get patched for the 200-day level 10 RCE bug.

Now I just want to smash my phone with a hammer. Smash it into tiny tiny pieces.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I don't understand the implementation. They already _have_ a background process running (on my Mac it shows an icon in the menu bar) and that application talks to the network. Why use a second process? I can understand spawning a process to actually do an update once one has been downloaded. So what am I missing?

(and since this is HN: as for the updating, fine. It's no different from visiting a web site and having the pages served by different revisions of the back end, and it's not like it has a complex UI that could cause user confusion. I assume DB doesn't update all that often anyway).

</comment><comment><USER29> If anyone from DropBox is in this thread. Did a DropBox update put itself on the toolbar of the Finder, and if so, did you test that functionality with a machine that already had a custom toolbar setup?

</comment><comment><USER30> What are some good alternatives to Dropbox that don"t do this?

<comment><USER31> You can remove the executable bit from the update process probably.

Disclaimer: I run Ubuntu.

<comment><USER32> I could be mistaken but on install the Dropbox app adds a few SetUID binaries that probably allow them to put the bit back.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This makes the client a tempting target for court-ordered and government- ordered surreptitious and potentially individually tailored updates (i.e. a malware delivery service for any government). It's a very bad idea.

</comment><comment><USER33> Is this done without the admin prompt?

</comment><comment><USER34> This seems like a terrible idea. Glad I don't use Dropbox.

</comment><comment><USER35> This is not okay.</comment>


Ask HN: How do I approach improving website latency? - <AUTHOR> Hello,
I recently put together a side project using GCP on
a MEAN stack. It involves a load-balancer performing ssl-termination, then routing to a small instance, which then returns static assets. Once the static assets are received, the browser will render the html and make another call to the backend, which then loads some data from a managed mongoDB stack and returns that data to be rendered as well.
The load time for the website is ~15 seconds total, the first half of which being for the initial call involving only static assets. I am trying to figure out why it is so slow but am having trouble doing so.
The instance is in Iowa (us-central1) while I am in Seattle. I tried only serving plain html/css in the initial call, but load time was still terrible.
I am not sure where I should focus my investigation, or if this is to be expected for an instance so far away, and if I just need to have an instance closer to me. Let me know what you think <comment><USER2> You should start by looking into the network requests. Most developer tools show you metrics on load time.

Do you have a link? I'm sure we could get to the root of your issue quickly.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think you are making hard for yourself. Try Azure.

<comment><AUTHOR> What do you mean?

<comment><USER3> Unless your download is really so big it really takes 15 seconds, you sound like you are in cloud hell.

One way to get out is to store the static web pages in an object store and serve them through a CDN. That is dead easy and will perform well.</comment></comment></comment>


The Startup Visa and Why The Xenophobes are Wrong - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/12/05/the-startup-visa-and-why-the-xenophobes-need-to-go-back-into-their-caves/

<comment><USER2> It isn't the "xenophobes" who attached "we need founders visas" to the guys hanging out in front of Home Depot.

The fact that the US needs and can benefit from importing more brains does not imply that it should continue to import more brawn.

That said, H1B is pretty much a disaster. Look at the allocation - tech does all the fighting but doesn't get most of the recipients. It really should be an auction (to ensure that it does go to "high value") and then expanded.</comment>


Ashlee Vance: Elon Musk Is the Hero America Deserves - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-05-22/elon-musk-speaks-frankly-on-coronavirus-spacex-and-rage-tweets <comment><USER2> Of course he will say that, he wants to sell more copies of his biography of Elon Musk.</comment>


Ask HN: What problem would you pay someone to solve for you? - <AUTHOR> There have been massive layoffs due to coronavirus around the world, and many people with marketable skills are now out of work.<p>I thought it might be a useful idea to start a thread where people can share problems they're looking to solve, both to match with people who can solve those problems as well as give people ideas for services to offer. <comment><USER2> A resource where if you are furloughed, laid off, fired, or quit your job you can easily understand your rights, and if you have a question you can easily connect with and pay a lawyer who is familiar with the laws in your specific location and industry.

<comment><USER3> This is one of those ideas which is very easy technically, but quite hard in terms of domain knowledge. If there is any lawyer reading this, please shed some light on this. I guess it would work by asking a series of generic questions and then routing the laid off worker to appropriate lawyer who can then look into it in detail?

Also, what about class action lawsuits? Does that apply here?

This is a great idea, tons of people need something like this, like right now...

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> To start, I'd love for someone to make it easier to receive ISO / SOC compliance. We have customers now asking for it and we don't know how to get started

<comment><USER4> This article is a pretty great: [https://latacora.micro.blog/2020/03/12/the- soc-starting.html](https://latacora.micro.blog/2020/03/12/the-soc- starting.html)</comment></comment>


First official Brain-Computer Interface journal coming in January 2014 - <AUTHOR> http://neurogadget.com/2013/06/29/first-official-brain-computer-interface-journal-coming-in-january-2014/8317 <comment><USER2> I am convinced that a Siri-like interface could (with existing or almost- existing technology) tap into the writings of a deceased person and answer questions shockingly well - questions from loved ones to start, but even from people 1000 years from now.

Especially if the deceased person had been planning and recording anticipated questions for a year or two.

What better way to preserve yourself for posterity? You could charge a million dollars and still get plenty of customers today - even if you told them it wouldn't be possible yet for years.

I remember listening to old audio of W. Clement Stone saying the way to sell life insurance wasn't to convince the person that it would take care of their family once they were gone, but to tell the person that it was the _only_ way to continue to control their family and direct their finances after they had died. People have an _urgent_ need to retain some type of control, and they _know_ without their help their family would certainly make poor and unwise choices.

</comment><comment><USER3> Not exactly sure, but aren't most journals a rip-off for both the submitting scientists as well as the readers?

As far as I know the submitter has to give all the rights to the journal while the reader pays a shitload of money that doesn't even go to the submitter (the people doing the actual science, you know?)…

</comment><comment><USER4> What makes it "official"?

<comment><USER5> i think it is the first journal solely focused on BCI and it will likely become the journal of the (eventual) (official) BCI Society.

the there's no official BCI society yet, but the people who put on the meeting where this announcement was made [http://bcimeeting.org/](http://bcimeeting.org/) are actively investigating becoming one.

then again, the same question can be asked, what makes their society the official society?</comment></comment>


Stephen Hawking: Aliens Exist, but Talking to them is too Dangerous - <AUTHOR> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/space/article7107207.ece <comment><USER2> _"I imagine they might exist in massive ships, having used up all the resources from their home planet. Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonise whatever planets they can reach."_

Gahd, to hear Stephen Hawking regurgitating the most vapid of pop culture[1] is extremely disappointing. I don't disagree with his point, and it's nice to hear him say it, but come on, he's arguably the greatest physicist of our time. Feed us some sort of argument on par with the Fermi paradox. Or at least something more than just 'this could happen, or that could happen.' Failing that, if you think us normals can't comprehend complexities, at least regurgitate Greg Egan.

[1] ID4 <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116629>

\---

Here's what I think. Despite the optimism of early sci-fi authors I see no reason to assume any alien we meet will be friendly, or indeed anything but ruthlessly self-centered. When we meet aliens we want to see them before they see us. We want to find out where they live and never let them find out where we live. This is a game of 'True names' on a cosmic scale, where our true name is our location in space. To play this game you need to ante up with the technology to spread your eggs far from the gravity well of origin. That's the bare minimum.

To think in terms of 'single-cellular life, multi-cellular life, and intelligence' does humanity's space program a huge disservice. It helps us remain fat and complacent in the sense that we're at the top of the food chain. Intelligence isn't a state to be reached; it is a continuance of evolution. And there's an unknown number of rungs for us to climb to break out of our niche, starting with basic space travel.

That's what I think; have at it. But at least it's more thought provoking than Hawking.

<comment><AUTHOR> I actually submitted this because I thought it was amusing how naive Hawking's view was. Personally I think Terence McKenna's take on aliens is much more likely to be correct, that if they exist they are probably 'not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.' His favorite example was the idea of non-material non-local aliens made from pure information, likely inspired by his DMT experience.

<comment><USER3> True. We are tied to our few perceptive faculties, understanding, and what we can measure from physical instruments. Science seems to be more open to the idea of parallel realities and universes these days, which is good, even if it isn't very pragmatic now. It is very likely inorganic life is the more ubiquitous manifestation of intelligence simply because of all the energy present, physical mass is the least common form. It is conceivable that inorganic life coexists with organic life without either entity being cognizant of the fact. Humans could even have the capacity to perceive such an entity if there were a survival incentive to do so or if our conscious minds were not so self-involved.

Personally, I think any civilization advanced enough to conduct interstellar travel would be a cooperative life form (organic life that is). Is it a coincidence that the most intelligent forms of life on earth are social and cooperative? Really once you think about it, pretty much all war on earth was rooted in not sharing resources, artificial boundaries, nationalism, religion, and poor resource allocation (i.e. the price system). These are all solvable problems that all to often get blamed on the "human nature," which I think is a convenient excuse fabricated by our minds in a petty attempt to rationalize our ages of suffering. Greed is environmental, not biological. Believe it or not nomads are pretty resourceful and respectful to one another and the environment; "modern" civilization seems to have an incentive to trade accountability for convenience--never really living within our means (crappy economies cut spending on space programs). We live on a small planet, and in even smaller paradigms restricted by all the arbitrary lines we draw on stuff we don't really understand for the sake of calling it our own. Exploring the empty, silent void of space, if not good for anything else, should be a humbling experience to truly discover how petty, yet fascinating our inner space really is.

<comment><USER4> I was just thinking that cooperative behavior seems to have pretty good survival value, at least for the life we can find. That, of course, says very little about life we can't find, since we don't know how different things might be. But it makes sense to me that a cooperative form, where different members of the species can have different but complimentary roles, is likely to be useful even in circumstances we can't predict. And once a species can cooperate with itself, my belief is that it can cooperate with another. All it takes is the insertion of a member of each species into the trust hierarchy of the other species. (Of course, the possibility is far removed from the realization.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It seems to me we don't have anything too rare here on Earth. They fan find their water, oxygen, nitrogen, etc much closer to home. Basically the same reason you don't travel across the world for a cup of coffee. We could potentially have a lot to gain from an advanced civilization -- specifically information. It seems unlikely to me that faster than light travel is common or economical even for aliens but maybe there's some chance of inter-galatic quantum communication. Maybe a handy blueprint on how to teraform local planets, cure diseases, efficiently produce endless amounts of energy, control & repair our environment, harvest resources from local asteroids & moons, track & divert foreign objects headed towards Earth, and so on.

</comment><comment><USER6> Here he recapitulates the plot of 'Independence Day' with remarkable precision, down to the roving band of aliens in giant ships that hop from planet to planet, stripping each of its resources.

<comment><USER7> Which would suggest that when it comes to reasoning about the true mysteries of the universe, being Stephen Hawking doesn't give you much advantage over being Roland Emmerich.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Strangers exist, but talking to them is too dangerous. Any person you talk to is likely to be self-centered and care nothing about your welfare; they'd love to just take your house, your car, whatever cash you've got on you. And you know, a lot of them can _kill_ you outright. You wouldn't believe how easy it is.

So the best policy is to not talk to strangers. Ever. Don't look at them. Don't let them see you. Don't let them know your name. And for God's sake don't let them know where you live.

In fact, you know what the very safest thing to do is, when you meet a stranger? Kill them first.

\</comment><comment></comment><comment>-

There's no reason to expect any given alien race to be murderous. Quote the opposite, there's every reason to expect them to be rare. Like murderous humans or murderous rogue states, they tend to die quickly because everyone finds the behavior so intolerable.

<comment><USER9> > "Like murderous humans or murderous rogue states, they tend to die quickly > because everyone finds the behavior so intolerable."

I'm not sure this makes any sense at all. What if they view us as we view chickens? They could come to our planet and see an exotic and splendid buffet on display for their enjoyment.

Om nom nom.

You could make the case that a lot of other species here on earth are very smart. But they're more delicious than smart for us.

I think us humans are neat, I may be biased :)

Maybe aliens would be terribly unimpressed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm not worried about aliens. I think the chances of spacefaring life evolving on a given planet are so small that all aliens are outside our light cone. If aliens did exist in our light cone, we would see some evidence of them shaping the universe into structures they value. From what we can tell so far, all those stars are shining on lifeless planets. If we saw infrared leakage from Dyson spheres everywhere, or radio/microwave/whatever signals broadcast for primitive beings, or anything else like that, I would assign much higher probability to aliens existing.

Actually, if aliens were around, we would probably never have existed. Our solar system is made up of resources that can be used to make whatever it is aliens want to make. The fact that the earth has sat around for 4.5 billion years without being consumed by Von Neumann machines is pretty good evidence against aliens.

On the flip side, if I discovered aliens I would destroy them immediately. Their values would most likely be completely different from ours. The risk to humanity would too great to allow them to exist freely.

Edit: Tangentially-related short story: [http://baencd.thefifthimperium.com/13-TheBalticWarCD/TheBalt...](http://baencd.thefifthimperium.com/13-TheBalticWarCD/TheBalticWarCD/The%20World%20Turned%20Upside%20Down/0743498747__13.htm)

<comment><USER11> _On the flip side, if I discovered aliens I would destroy them immediately_

Apparently Hawking feels that they would do likewise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Considering the only example of life we've seen is all of these species that co-evolved on earth, I think it's a little too ealy to understand what "life" even means, no? After all, it might be that there are many more variations of evolutionary paths than there are probabilities of one getting this far...

</comment><comment><USER13> This point of view makes much more sense than the one of skeptics. However I believe that there is a huge technological barrier to interstellar and interplanetary travels which provides a natural protection. Overcomming this barrier implies mastering energy source and many other aspects to the point, I expect, that colonizing a planet like Christophe Columbus discovery initiated would not make any sense. A civilization would most probably build a huge vessel providing it the optimal conditions for its long term subsistance with the required mobility to avoid whatever obstacle it could meet. We, on earth, can't do that and are exposed to a collision that will be very difficult to avoid. Another reason, I beleive, is that the most important value is scientific and technologic knowledge which yields the ability to develop the capacity to defend one self and to control its own destiny. There is no need to colonize a planet or kill everybody to get this. Though I agree that there is a risk and the longer we can stay away from it, the better. The repression/inhibition (refoulement) agressively and arrogantly promoted by skeptics is the worst strategy to adopt. We should try to face it, understand it, and learn whatever we can from it. I also beleive that there is a good chance that UFOs are manifestations of ET visits.

</comment><comment><USER14> I agree that if they reach us first, we're probably borked. However, if we reach _them_ first, we are logically more advanced, so we should really really try to reach them first.

<comment><USER15> If you can only reach them via radio, while they can reach you by starships, you're doomed all the same, being the first to reach the other side.

The problem is, they may have already been reached by us, it's just that we don't know yet.

<comment><USER14> I meant: physically.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> _The universe, he points out, has 100 billion galaxies, each containing hundreds of millions of stars. In such a big place, Earth is unlikely to be the only planet where life has evolved._ <\-- from the article

Contact's Script: (the movie, 1997)

Young Ellie: Dad, do you think there's people on other planets?

Ted Arroway: I don't know, Sparks. But I guess I'd say if it is just us... seems like an awful waste of space.

</comment><comment><USER17> Yes aliens exist but chances of them coming to earth any time soon are slim. The universe is huge, there are probably billions of worlds with aliens who are hundreds, thousands and millions of years ahead of us technologically.

And the reason we haven't see them?

Well there are a few things I can think of:

1\. Maybe faster than light travel is hard to do. Sure it's nice to dream of it in science fiction...but how hard is it in reality? Not only do you have to figure out how to travel faster than 671,000,000 miles per second. But then you have to figure out how to build a shield system that has the energy to take abuse of millions bits of space debris hammering at it every millisecond.

2\. Even if the aliens had light speed, and hyperspace...you have to ask yourself who would be there to hear us? It's only been ~80 years since the first TV broadcasts....so there are probably only a few hundred stars that the signal reached so far(out of trillions)...and we have no idea about signal distortion...who knows maybe 3 light years from earth, the tv signal can't be discerned from the universe's background noise? Even a thousand years from now, even if the signal remains just as strong as it is on earth, the signal would still only cover an insignificantly tiny portion of the universe.

3\. Even if they heard us, if they have light speed, they probably know of thousands other races, making us nothing special....they might get around to sending us a research mission...a few years from now, when the university that found us gets the funding to send interns on a space trip. And if they don't have light speed, it'll take them another 500-1000 years to get here.

Frankly the way I view it, is that on galactic scale we are in the boonies...if there is any big alien empire, it exists near galactic center, where there are hundreds of stars within a small distance.

<comment><USER18> It's not clear that the galactic center is a good place for life to evolve. The higher stellar density also means more supernova explosions, and there's also the black hole at the center which likely from time to time was a very bright source of x-ray and ultraviolet radiation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The Killing Star by Charles R. Pellegrino makes a very compelling argument that if aliens do exist, we are probably royally screwed.

Can we honestly say that evaluated from the outside as a species, we are not pretty close to a threatening, violent, virulent plague? I think our only hope is that the ET's are both extremely benevolent _and_ too powerful to consider us anything approaching a credible threat. But the scenario outlined in the book about relativistic kinetic kill weapons being a great equaliser speaks to a dark future in the event that we ever attain the necessary technology to be such a threat.

Hopefully by then our historical track record won't look quite so psychotic.

</comment><comment><USER20> Actual source is a discovery channel special airing tomorrow.

<http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/stephen-hawking/>

</comment><comment><USER21> I don't think they are all that mean. I mean, they stuck Billy Pilgrim in with Montana Wildhack, so they at least seem like they will help a brother get laid.

</comment><comment><USER22> >I imagine they might exist in massive ships, having used up all the resources from their home planet.

We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own.

</comment><comment><USER23> Finding Earth in the universe would be like finding a specific single grain of sand on Miami beach.

<comment><USER24> That's true, but life is only the ability to replicate and does not necessarily have anything to do with any particular element or substrate. Intelligent life could be totally unlike anything we think of as life, and could even exist inside the sun.

<comment><USER25> _We_ might ourselves be a resources. A novel life form.

<comment><USER26> We'll make great pets!

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpkmtweNQ-U>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> If they've developed to the point of constructing interplanetary space ships I doubt that they'd need Earth for its energy/resources. To consider this is to float in a flawed paradigm. They've probably developed some neat ways to rechannel energy that our human organs just haven't enabled us to perceive.

<comment><USER28> The only thing I can think of that they might want Earth for is the planet itself. It's a pretty nice, temperate, life-sustaining planet, and any species which evolved on a planet like it might find living here a lot more pleasant than living on an interstellar starship.

<comment><USER29> If they've been living on a spaceship for many generations, the thought of living on a planet may be quite repugnant to them.

The original mission may have been to find a hospitable planet, but generations later the travelers just prefer their spaceship. Maybe that's their "home" now.</comment></comment></comment>


Stack The Memory [Music Video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.stackthememory.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> Got this song stuck in my head.</comment>


Show HN: Build custom audiences and add them straight to Twitter as a list - <AUTHOR> https://uprise.io/how-to-build-custom-audiences-export-to-twitter-list/

<comment><USER2> I really like this!</comment>


SonyPictures.com hacked, personal information and passwords compromised - <AUTHOR> http://pastebin.com/Y38gCS82 <comment><USER2> For those put off by the first 40 lines, here's the good part:

"SonyPictures.com was owned by a very simple SQL injection, one of the most primitive and common vulnerabilities, as we should all know by now. From a single injection, we accessed EVERYTHING. Why do you put such faith in a company that allows itself to become open to these simple attacks?

"What's worse is that every bit of data we took wasn't encrypted. Sony stored over 1,000,000 passwords of its customers in plaintext, which means it's just a matter of taking it. This is disgraceful and insecure: they were asking for it.

<comment><USER3> Yikes - I believe in the PSN hack there was some question as to whether the passwords were encrypted or not. I'm glad it's out in the open for this one. Think we'll see Sony changing their name any time soon?

<comment><USER4> I honestly don't think any of this news makes it to the mainstream. Go ask your mom or non technical friend if they heard about the Sony hack. I'd bet they haven't a clue what you're talking about. This only hurts them in the tech circles and as a bunch of other people said, it will be forgotten by next year.

<comment><USER5> It's the fourth story on The Guardian's website, and the fifth on the BBC right now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Seems Sony really has kicked up the swarm with that GeoHot clamp down.

I am fairly certain that there are some executive meetings that are seriously questioning whether or not that initial action was wise.

I never thought this type of extortion could work, but Hot Damn. This is an effective campaign.

Talk about relentless!

Edit: This is really a losing battle for Sony. They are too big, there are too many vulnerabilities. They are too exposed. I know this sounds extreme, but are we witnessing the end of Sony as we know it ? It sounds ridiculous on the surface, but think about the distraction this has become. The billions of dollars of civil liabilities they are now open to, and this is not stopping any time soon. Talk about the perfect storm created by one anonymous group. Kinda insane, but also feels kinda cool....in a weird way. There is something liberating about a small group of 'anonymous' hackers taking on a Goliath of a corporation and winning. And I am a Capitalist to the core.

Although, the likely, annoying outcome of this is that this strengthens the hand of those that want a 'censored' Internet to prevent these types of things from happening. So this could very well lead to the end of the internet as we know it today. Also very hyperbolic, I know....but I believe it to be true.

<comment><USER7> What the hell did they do that got people so pissed off?

<comment><USER8> Just in case you really don't know, the various branches of Sony have demonstrated technological contempt for [their] customers for years. I'll omit their insistence on promoting their own products over other standards and general push for increased DRM, such as Minidisc/ATRAC, Blu-ray, etc. and focus on their actual attacks.

It started with the CD root kit fiasco, in which music CDs distributed by Sony infected Windows PCs with software designed to prevent the ripping of music CDs to the computer, which also contained exploitable holes used by malware to infect computers.

Sony then removed the Other OS (e.g. Linux) feature from the new version of its PS3 consoles. This wasn't too egregious, but next they retroactively removed Other OS from older consoles that originally supported it. That upset a lot of people.

Along came GeoHot, a reverse engineer determined to get Other OS back, and no doubt other less-outspoken hackers. So he and the others did, and along with it recovered Sony's private key used to sign PS3 software, allowing Linux to access all the hardware of the PS3, as well as running other homebrew software.

Less-scrupulous individuals, not including GeoHot himself, used the aforementioned work to run pirated software on the PS3. This upset Sony.

The straw that broke the camel's back, though, was Sony suing GeoHot into oblivion (I personally suspect they also astroturfed gaming sites to get GeoHot's hack associated with cheaters at Call of Duty, which it was not). This is the final event that triggered the misguided but potent onslaught of attacks against any and all Sony properties.

References:

[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal)

[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/PlayStation_3...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/PlayStation_3#Private_key_compromised)

[Edit: fixed botched pronoun after partial sentence rewrite]

<comment><USER9> Misguided?

<comment><USER8> I say misguided because it's highly unlikely the attacks will have the desired outcome. I heard the most recent hack mentioned on the local NPR broadcast of BBC radio, and all they said was that Sony was attacked again. I'm not aware of any mainstream media saying why.

The only effect seems to be people portraying hackers negatively in general, and at best, questioning why Sony was so vulnerable. The root motivation I described above seems to get no mention.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've said this before and I'll say it again: Sony is facing a highly skilled group of hackers that have made it their mission to ruin the company. If you have sensitive data with any of Sonys products, I'd advise you to delete it ASAP. This is not going away. Sony will be fighting attacks like this for years to come and they have only themselves to blame.

<comment><USER11> I don't know that deleting it will do much good. Most web apps for performance reasons don't actually do a delete against the database, rather mark a record as deleted and perhaps run a batch job later to clean deleted records from the database. If you've got access to the database via SQL injection, you'll have access to all those "deleted" records as well. Even of you go through the website and update each field with empty, anonyomoua, or incorrect data; I suspect there's a high chance of backups being available to anyone who's 0wned their servers...

My advice would be to assume any data Sony has about you is already in the hands of attackers, and do whatever you can to minimize the usefulness of that to the attackers (which largely means ensure the password you used at any Sony site isn't useable anywhere else online)

<comment><USER12> Alternatively, you could SQL inject their databases yourself and personally delete your information.

<comment><USER13> Anything less would not qualify as due diligence!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I know someone that briefly worked for a third party company that Sony had outsourced a fairly large project to (building some social networking features into the web based side of PSN). I found it really surprising at the time that Sony had outsourced that sort of thing, but I'm getting the feeling now that it must have been a fairly common practice.

Given the wildly different business sectors that Sony is involved in, it's really not so surprising that their security varies considerably amongst them. Somehow I doubt lulzsec would be anywhere nearly as successful if they were attempting to steal semiconductor manufacturing information from the Japanese offices. Although that might just make it all the more insulting to Sony's customers who just had all of their personal information stolen.

</comment><comment><USER15> At first it was embarrassing, now it's just absurd.

<comment><USER16> Disagree on absurdity. I'm certain that if you focused enough eyes on any company with as much surface area exposed to the internet you'd poke just as many holes.

<comment><USER17> _What's worse is that every bit of data we took wasn't encrypted. Sony stored over 1,000,000 passwords of its customers in plaintext, which means it's just a matter of taking it. This is disgraceful and insecure: they were asking for it._

I'm not sure that is true for any company with as much surface area. I would be extremely disappointed if it were true of any of Canada's five major banks, for example. Google has been under continuous hacking attack from China and so far they haven't had to 'fess up to storing passwords in plaintext.

<comment><USER16> "Any" is _probably_ an exaggeration. I'd cede that and accept "most." We can hope that Google is an exception because of the caliber of employee they hire, since obviously they also have a lot of domain knowledge. But, I think that only means we're quibbling about the embarrassment level of these breaches.

<comment><USER17> Sorry for the delay... Parenting! Any ways, I agree we shouldn't quibble about any/most.

I also agree that a big surface area (such as units with independent web strategies all over the world) increases the likelihood of there being some breach of security. What I find embarrassing here is that we aren't talking about one of the Sony properties having a breach, it's lots and lots of them.

I suggest that this is symptomatic of a problem with Sony itself, not just the surface area they present. What I'd expect from a well-managed company with a big surface area is yes, some property might have a breach, but that would be the exception. It's beginning to look like Sony's lax security with respect to customer information is the rule and not the exception.

JM2C, I am not claiming I know this for a fact.

<comment><USER16> Understand regarding parenting. I do that myself. :-)

I do see your point about Sony, and they may in fact be an outlier here. I think I've been accustomed to the story of customer information breaches from large corporations though, and so maybe I'm overly pessimistic?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It is just sad that all these hackers think they're doing everybody a favor by attacking "evil corporations" like Sony. But while they may be right in exposing Sony's lousy security, meanwhile they hurt one million people by releasing their information out into the public in a way that can never be taken back.

Unless you think hurting one company you deem bad outweighs hurting a million innocent private citizens, then your priorities are a bit messed up.

<comment><USER19> If they didn't release the information:

1) Sony would just accuse them of lying and people (the general public) would just believe Sony over a bunch of anonymous hackers.

2) Change doesn't happen unless people get off their butts. This is a way to motivate that change.

I don't necessarily agree with it, but you're talking as if there is no logic behind this other than recklessness.

<comment><USER14> The public is already predisposed to believing any hacking claims targeted at Sony at the moment. I wouldn't exactly frame their actions as reckless or lacking in logic either. How about malicious? I am particularly put off by this line:

"This is disgraceful and insecure: they were asking for it."

I get it, they have poor security, as a customer, this makes me really angry. But the general tone there is kind of similar to what you get when people accuse rape victims of being complicit in the rape. "She was askin' for it!"

<comment><USER20> That's sort of like saying that software piracy is theft.

Blaming victims for rape is dangerous because it discourages victims from coming forward, and adds to intense feelings of shame and guilt that come with sexual violation. It also tends to come with suggestions that women should restrict their behavior, not seeking to be attractive or acting in 'risky' stereotypically male ways.

Criticizing a cooperation for failing to follow security best practice, and speculating about the effect of outsourcing or technology is completely different. I'd say that as a lot of people here run websites, it's probably a good idea too.

<comment><USER14> I probably should not have used rape as the example there. What I was really trying to convey is that a crime was committed, and the perpetrators have set things up to shift the public's blame to Sony.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Companies like Sony make claims that their Intellectual Property is worth X amount in court and go after individuals for huge amounts of money. I think you could argue that people's Personal Information is worth at least X + Y more.

If someone takes them to court and a huge, ridiculous, judgement is handed out, then maybe these companies will think twice about securing their customers data. Seriously, unencrypted password fields? A SQL injection?

Of course, I'm just dreaming.

</comment><comment><USER22> This series of hackings is everything that's wrong with the software industry in a microcosm. Sony is a multi-billion dollar international company, and yet they can't even hire competent enough software and security professionals to ensure that their public facing websites holding personal data for millions of people don't have noob level security vulnerabilities.

Software is still more alchemy than chemistry today. There are no objective measures or well-trusted authorities which can be used to ensure that any given developer or any given piece of software meets a certain degree of competence or quality. Only the subjective judgment of fellow alchemists can reliably gauge the quality of another alchemist, and then often only with a rather lot of effort. The most fundamental consequence of this is that no organization can easily produce high quality software merely by throwing enough money at it. This is a competitive advantage for small high-talent shops but it has some rather negative consequences for the rest of the world.

</comment><comment><USER23> I have seen lots of web work for Sony-sized companies being awarded to design- heavy advertising agencies with incompetent backend developers when such work should be undertaken by people skilled in making the plumbing of public- facing, secure and scalable websites. This is the kind of mistake only a junior makes that should never pass the most complacent code-review process.

Like an old friend of mine used to say, "you pay peanuts, you buy monkeys"

<comment><USER24> I've actually been one of those developers working on a site for a major corporation who outsourced the development and design to an advertising agency. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few holes in our site, despite the external security audit.

The main issue is that the advertising agency handled the development very poorly. Expectations and specifications were not well defined, budgets were not set appropriately, and project management was largely absent. This leads to my fellow developer and I, who were brought in because the agency lacked developer talent, having to scramble to get all the features in before the deadline.

I would blame some of this on lack of technical project management as well, not just on the coders.

<comment><USER23> I have to agree with you: the result cannot be blamed on the programmers alone. What I saw was a cultural mismatch, all the way from the control of the requirements to the selection of personnel. Making an ad is not the same as making a web application, the attributes of a good writer or artists are not what define a good programmer. I have successfully introduced a measure of sanity in two agencies I worked for, with great results (I really love making people's lives better), but that's not the whole market.

Yet, I can understand a bit of this mindset. Far too many websites are to be discarded by the end of the campaign. When so many products are supposed to last a month or so, people often forget about how sausages should be made.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Dear megacorps: don't make the Internets mad.

<comment><USER3> More specifically, don't make Anonymous mad.

<comment> qu4z-2 No, pretty much just don't make the internet mad. Have I not been keeping up, and these attacks have all been linked back to Anonymous in some credible way? (I realise the problem with that question)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> <http://twitter.com/#!/LulzSec/status/76388576832651265>

Stay classy

<comment><USER27> Another imaginary currency. Very bad.

Bitcoin is just another imaginary currency. But now its technofreaks imagining it, what a difference. A real adventure into economics and currencies would be to strive for a society with no currency, where people do things for the lulz. Not for the coins man.

<comment><USER28> Man are you a spook?

I don't get this anti-Bitcoin thing at all. I'm not for or against it, it's interesting tech for sure - fascinating even - and obviously polarizing to some. But I just don't get this attitude at all, at least amongst HN'ers.

<comment><USER29> this was for me a good explanation: [http://www.quora.com/Is-the- cryptocurrency-Bitcoin-a-good-id...](http://www.quora.com/Is-the- cryptocurrency-Bitcoin-a-good-idea)

<comment><USER28> Thanks, that is a good read.

Edit: Typo.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> The thing that struck me first about this was the fact that it is in impeccable English, yet written as a kid would write. Something smells funny about that.

What is to stop a competitor of Sony from trying to take them down under the guise of disenfranchised youth.

<comment><USER31> Funny, I didn't notice until you mentioned that. It is nicely written, and apostrophe use seems all right. :-)

Not sure if I buy the "as a kid would write" bit, but it is surprising to see this. Maybe the hacker just took 10 mins and proofread his own text?

<comment><USER32> Or maybe we shouldn't stereotype, and assume these people - like you and I - can use proper grammar without even having to spend 10 minutes proofreading?

<comment><USER31> Speak for yourself, I have to proofread and edit everything I write! :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> What is the benefit of publishing all the stolen data now? I guess it's proof for a successful attack, but it doesn't have any other benefit now, does it?

<comment><USER34> It makes the people who have data included in the leak care that bit more, and makes hit hit that bit closer to home?

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Hey, I'm curious whether my information was compromised in this attack, but I'm too lazy to figure out how to figure out whether it was. If someone has downloaded the released data and is looking for a weekend project (and the weekend's coming up), I'd love a site that lets me easily determine whether I'm affected.

</comment><comment><USER36> It's worth noting that this is the same group that gained access to the complete Fox.com X-Factor contestant database last month.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2525865>

<http://thepiratebay.org/user/LulzSec>

</comment><comment><USER37> All the info here: <http://lulzsecurity.com/releases/>

<comment><USER38> Isn't it a little strange their irc is on 2600? I thought they owned them the same night as PBS...

<comment><USER39> If you follow their twitter, they are trying to be ironic. They took down some of the irc servers again to be funny the day before.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> This is the #sownage promised by Lulzsec a couple of days ago during the PBS fiasco a couple of days ago[1] by the same group.

Sony is getting owned on all fronts several times a week for the last month or so.

[1]: <http://apps.ycombinator.com/item?id=2598798>

</comment><comment><USER40> Given the concurrent China stories, I wonder how many of these independent releases are just uncovering things that China farms like rice, and checks on them like they're rss feeds.

</comment><comment><USER41> While this is incredibly embarrassing for Sony, as it exposes gross incompetence, can someone explain why the FBI/law enforcement is not able to shutdown the hackers by filing criminal charges against the owners/operators of lulzsecurity.com, since they are openly admitting that they are behind all of the attacks.

</comment><comment><USER42> Is there a particular reason people are focused on revenging Sony?

<comment><USER43> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment_Ame...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment_America_v._George_Hotz)

<comment><USER44> so why isn't there anything done against Apple? Apple's lawyers are on the back of anyone who makes white iPhone cases, jailbreakers, etc.

<comment><USER45> First, selling unofficial/unreleased parts with an Apple logo on them and jailbreaking are completely different. You can sell all the cases and backplates you want, but you can't start putting someone else's trademarks on them.

Second, Apple hasn't sued any jailbreakers.

<comment><USER46> I'd also be willing to bet Apple isn't very susceptible to SQL injection nor do I suspect they store passwords in plaintext.

<comment><USER47> And your bet is based on what?

Looking at the URLs that iTunes and friends use behind the scenes it doesn't seem like the apple web-stuff was built by competent programmers either.

Try a few random clicks on <https://iforgot.apple.com> and look at the url-bar and firebug to get an idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> count down until someone adapts the bitcoin-blocker extension to also block blatantly obvious sony network security breaches that popup every hour on the front page... 3. 2. 1</comment>


Show HN: Move your Flickr photos to Facebook (with privacy) - <AUTHOR> http://export.goyaka.com

<comment><USER2> Nice UX! I see you have a note on the bottom about Picasa support coming soon, so I'd wait for that. Also, a Facebook -> Picasa one would be cool too :)

OT, but does the name of the domain signify anything? I vaguely remember it being some sort of an insult. Was that intended?

<comment><USER3> I'd like to see Flickr to 500px or somewhere else that preserves originals.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi Jace, We preserve the original photos as long as we have access to them. It is available in Facebook as well and could be downloaded from the photo page - <https://skitch.com/alagu/gwgny/download-highres>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Interoperability between services is bound to be the next big thing. Nice job, guys!

</comment><comment><USER5> Done! Thanks! Always wanted to move off flickr!

</comment><comment><USER6> More info: [http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/how-to-move-your- flickr-p...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/how-to-move-your-flickr- photos-to-facebook/6611)</comment>


Looking Ahead to the Next Platforms That Will Define 2017 - <AUTHOR> https://www.nextplatform.com/2017/01/15/looking-ahead-next-platforms-2017/ <comment><USER2> Two big forces, which are somewhat distinct:

1) exascale, e.g. large scale scientific compute for government and academic interests

2) hyperscale, e.g. large scale compute for industry, particularly machine learning and big data analytics

While some convergence is to be expected, it will be interesting to see how both evolve. Both sectors appear poised for growth, as ML explodes and DOE pushes against competition from China and Japan.</comment>


Ask HN: Should I gauge interest in my app or go straight to release? - <AUTHOR> Hi everyone,
I've been developing a small web app as a personal project and I got a fully functional prototype.
It got potential, and I've been thinking about releasing a fully polished version as a proper service. That would involve getting a decent hosting plan, run testing, implement a subscription model to monetize the project.
My dilemma is: should I instead lightheartedly deploy this first version to gather interest and receive feedback, and then progress to a more adult version of it and redirect users?
People who have shipped several web apps and potentially met modest usage in a few of them, what's your opinion? <comment><USER2> You don't need to launch this to get feedback. I would cold email five people who you think will find it useful.

Ask them if they have this problem you're trying to solve. Ask if they currently use something to solve that problem. Ask them for their feedback and if they'd be willing to pay for this service.

You can find emails pretty easily by using any of the following tools: saleshacker, voilanorbert, toofr, curtact, or [http://emailhunter.co](http://emailhunter.co)

If you can't get people in your target market with this painpoint to answer your email, you will have a hard time finding your first customers.

<comment><USER3> Do you really find cold emails effective? Personally, whenever I get a cold email I make a note of the company name and vow to never purchase a service from them.

<comment><USER4> I found them very effective. But I don't ask people to pay, I ask for feedback. If the software is good, they'll want to use it anyway!

People are willing to help if you are equally open about what the software can and cannot do. I implemented several features straight out of what people said they wanted through email, and the product was noticeably better for it.

I've also had people not respond at all or react strangely.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is an excellent read by Justin Mares (co-author of the excellent Traction book).

tldr;

Find out if people actually want your product before you build it.

`80/20 Validation: The Cheap and Fast Way to Prove a Business How to easily test a business idea in 2 weeks with less than $100`

[https://sumome.com/stories/80-20-business-idea- validation](https://sumome.com/stories/80-20-business-idea-validation)

</comment><comment><USER6> You could start with a landing page to gauge the level of interest, and then change your deploy plans based on the interest level?

</comment><comment><USER7> Why not post it here and get feedback from here before proceeding to a fully polished version?

</comment><comment><USER8> The best book on this subject is Lean Startup. Build, test, iterate. Put something out there, gather feedback and adjust.

Also consider the "show HN" to get feedback from the hacker news community.</comment>


Ask HN: Best way to bring a hardware idea to production? - <AUTHOR>

I have an idea for an iPad accessory. Anyone have any experience getting something from idea/mock-up to actually getting it manufactured? Aside from googling "contract manufacturing," not sure where to start. <comment><USER2> here's a good video for info: [http://www.fastcompany.tv/video/a-look-how- china-changing-ho...](http://www.fastcompany.tv/video/a-look-how-china- changing-how-your-gadgets-are-made-marketed-and-delivered)

depending on what your product is, of course alibaba.com is always a good way to start contacting manufacturers.

<comment><USER3> Yes, you need to first create a prototype or at least avery good detailed set of drawings to explain how the product will work and all the features (buttons, handles, colors, shape etc).

Once you have the basic construction of the product you can pitch it to investors or manufacturers and see if you can convince them to take some risk and work with you on it (both of then).</comment></comment>


USGS 7 Days, Magnitude 4.5+ Worldwide EarthQuake Map - <AUTHOR> http://s831.us/1ttX0uO

<comment><USER2> The list is Ok, but it's more interesting to hit the globe icon at the top right and look at them on the map. Circle size indicates magnitude, color indicates age.

Of note, Indonesia is very active and the impending eruption in Iceland is showing up (hundreds of earthquakes in recent days, though only a few over 4.5).</comment>


Ask HN: Is there a service to get code review online? - <AUTHOR>

Is there a service where I can get my code reviewed for some fee? At times I submit a coding exercise which works as per requirements but for some reason is not good enough. I would love to get it reviewed from an expert. <comment><USER2> I can review your code. I haven't offered that as a service before, but I am a consultant, and I'm quite experienced.

However before sending me any code, be sure you're not violating a nondisclosure agreement.

email@example.com [http://www.warplife.com/mdc/](http://www.warplife.com/mdc/)

</comment><comment><USER3> If you're doing coding exercises, have you looked at [http://exercism.io](http://exercism.io)? I believe you can submit a solution before all the test cases are passing.</comment>


Mathematics for Machine Learning - <AUTHOR> https://mml-book.github.io/ <comment><USER2> The contents are amazing! I would love to buy the paper version! Will it be available at Amazon?</comment>


In 2017, only 17% of startups have a female founder - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/19/in-2017-only-17-of-startups-have-a-female-founder/ <comment><USER2> I apologize if this comes off as 'mansplaining', but I ask this with genuine curiosity:

Is the "only" a necessary qualifier in this? 17% is an impressive and laudable number; notwithstanding the plateau effect of recent years. Nearly a third of startup founders are women? That's a cool number I honestly would not have known about otherwise and to be genuine, never really even gave thought about.</comment>


What I Learnt About Effective Use of Analytics - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@karti/what-i-learnt-about-effective-use-of-analytics-f47884360037 <comment><USER2> The article was pretty good, a lot of basic intro to analytics. What analytics tools did you use to track the events in your app?</comment>


Understanding health studies - <AUTHOR> http://www.vox.com/2015/1/5/7482871/types-of-study-design

<comment><USER2> Too bad OP didn't include one of the major specific criticisms, instead of unconvincingly talking about the evidence pyramid: healthy-user bias.

So, the study looked at _whole-grain eating_ and a health outcome, and the study found lower incidence of the health outcome? Who could have predicted that? (Well, everyone. It even used the Nurses' Health Study for data!) That is almost as bad as the soda study a while back: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8490522](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8490522)

<comment><AUTHOR> Are you commenting in disregard of this paragraph near the top of the submitted article? "In this case, the study population was not randomly assigned to eat more whole grains, which means we can't know whether the people who ate them are healthier because of their diet or because of other traits they share, like their age, ethnicity, smoking status, alcohol intake, physical activity levels, multivitamin use, and family medical history."

<comment><USER2> Nope. Notice that none of those is healthy user bias - age != healthy user bias, smoking != healthy user bias, and so on. Smoking and multivitamin use may reflect it, but there's a big difference between mentioning a few confounders and pointing out a major confound that could not just explain the result entirely but also explain why nutrition results have been and will be systematically wrong.</comment></comment></comment>